Dismissed

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah, v. M/s Laxmi Jewellers, # C4, Mayur Kushal Complex

Telangana HC29 Mar 2022CRP/3260/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenged an order passing attachment before judgment. The court held that the matter had become infructuous and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah, Vs M/s Laxmi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3260 OF 2011

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia set aside the order dated 22-7-2010 orders passed by the learned lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in lA No.2716 of 2010 in OS No.3B9 of 2010 in so far as^the Respondent No.S/Defendant No. 5 is concerned.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah,^{S/o. LateSrisailam,aged} ?6.^V93ft; ,Oic^Butin"tt' FUo. HINo. 24-271t3,^{Opp: Ews-3, KPHBColony' Kukatpally'HyderaDao'}

¶9

".Revision^{Petitioner( Respondent No'S/Defendant No'5)}

¶10

AND

¶11

M/s Laxmi^{Jewellers, # C4, Mayur KushalComplex,.Gunfoundry,Besides} ' s:ilffiidH:l $f ?r?? ftt. zm:;rF, l"'51)l a: ag ff" rnit:: "'' Hyderabad.

¶12

.'.Respondent^{No'1 (Petitioner/Plaintiff)}

¶13

'Hfftid,t?l-:["lr]i'r,',[fIf'";';l'h'rs:'wl'B]llir"r'"'o"o Fathenagar

¶14

Sri^{Akkinapalli Venkateshwarlu'}

¶15

Sri^{Akkinapalli Umesh'}

¶16

Smt.^{AkkinaPalliSuiatha'}

¶17

Smt'^{AkkinaPalli SandhYa'}

¶18

Smt'^{AkkinaPalliRadha'}

¶19

.E.i$i,srllf

¶20

*r**r:":*31prffi i,:riiffi:;]:;;:;:,"'.',

¶21

¶22

CRPMP. NO: 4680 OF 2011

¶23

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thr:rewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of orders of attachment daled 22-7-2010 passed by the learned lll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in IA No. 2716 of 2010 in OS No.389 of 2010 and the consequential warrant of attachment before Judgment.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. DHANANJAI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: ----

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

I i :

¶28

ll()()l ll trlr,l)^{si!'l'..tts'l'I('t) l'. sltl'll) sI Lll t}

¶29

('lr ID.\o. il2(iO⁽⁾ 11 2( )t I

¶30

() tt l) l,l lt:

¶31

Aggrievedbytheorrlerdared,.22;7-2oI0passedinl.A.No.27l(iof20l0 in o.S.No. 389 of^{2010 by the Ill-Additional chief .ludge, citv Civil Court'} Hyderabad,orderingthepetitionunderOrder-38'Rule-05readwithsection 15I of CPC filed by^{the petitioner/plaintiffand issuing conditional} attachment^{of immovableproperty before judgment,the presentcivil} Revision^{Petitigonhas been filed by the respondentNo'S/defendant No'5'} 2. The counsel^{for the petitioner rcpresenledthat the matterhasbecome} infructuous^{and nothingsurvivesfor adjudication'} 3. Recording^{the above submission' the Civil RevisionPetitionis} accordingly^{dismissedas infructuous' No costs'} 4. As^{a sequel' miscellaneous applications if any' pendingshall stand} disposed^of'

¶32

ITTRUE^COPYII

¶33

,:B[?.:AIXSHJI secrlou^oFFlcER

¶34

To,

¶35

1^{rhe *r Additiona,:T::]ff,} 2.^{One CC to Sri G' Dhanat} 3 l-""3D#g:;y gbr. {

^il::';ili'derabad

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^2910:312022

./ '1t\EST
10 llrT ztrd
,:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

CRP.No.3260 ot 2011

¶42

DISMISSING THE CRP AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶43

fr.tn qr Ab Ir^fioPfr

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah, v. M/s Laxmi Jewellers, # C4, Mayur Kushal Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Lagishetty Papaiah, v. M/s Laxmi Jewellers, # C4, Mayur Kushal Complex

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Manazir Ahmed,Karimnagar Vs Mandal Revenue Officer,Karimnagar

Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Ltd. Vs v. Vijay Kumar and 3 Ots

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Vadde Ram Reddy and Another

Samineni Appaiah Vs Samineni Srinivasa Rao

Syed Qamruddin Vs Smt. a. Manohar Bai (Died) per LRs Rr- 2 to 4

S.Pushpaleela , Pushpa Vs S.Bhaskar